BABACAN LİDERLİK, YILDIRMA VE ÖRGÜTSEL SİNİZM İLİŞKİLERİNDE BİREYCİ VE TOPLULUKÇU KÜLTÜREL DEĞERLERİN ROLLERİ

Öz

Farklı liderlik uygulamalarının hangi koşullarda daha uygun olabileceğini belirlemeye yönelik araştırmaların bazıları liderin ve/veya izleyenlerinin niteliklerine, bazıları ise örgütün ve toplumsal kültürel değerlerin özelliklerine odaklanmıştır. Bu çalışmada, öncelikle babacan liderlik-örgütsel sinizm ilişkisinde, yıldırmanın aracılık etkisi incelenmiş ve ardından yöneticilerin babacan liderlik uygulamaları durumunda, çalışanların bu davranışları ne ölçüde yıldırmacı olarak algılamalarının, bireyci ya da toplulukçu kültürel değerlere göre değişiklik gösterip göstermediği araştırılmıştır. Veriler bir Organize Sanayi Bölgesinde faaliyet gösteren farklı sektörlerde çalışan 333 kişiden anket yolu ile elde edilmiştir. Babacan Liderlik, İşyerinde Psikolojik Taciz, Örgütsel Sinizm ve Bireyci-Toplulukçu (INDCOL) Kültürel Değerler Ölçekleri uygulanmıştır. Çalışmanın hipotezleri, Hayes (2018) tarafından önerilen PROCESS makrosu kullanılarak aracılık ve düzenleyicilik analizleri ile test edilmiştir. Bulgular, yıldırma algısının babacan liderlik ve örgütsel sinizm arasında aracılık rolüne sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Tespit edilen bu aracılık etkisinin, bireyci ve toplulukçu kültürel değerler açısından farklılaşmadığı da görülmüştür. Öte yandan, yöneticilerinin babacan liderlik uygulamaları ile çalışanların yıldırma algıları arasındaki ilişkide, bireyci ve toplulukçu kültürel değerlerin düzenleyici etkisini belirlemeye yönelik olan analizlerde, sadece toplulukçuluğun, düzenleyici etkisi olduğu anlaşılmıştır. Diğer bir ifadeyle, yüksek toplulukçu değerlere sahip çalışanları, yöneticilerini babacan lider olarak algıladıklarında daha düşük seviyede yıldırma hissettikleri tespit edilmiş, ancak benzer bir düzenleyici etki bireycilik kültürel değişkeni açısından doğrulanmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Liderlik
• Babacan Liderlik
• Yıldırma
• Örgütsel Sinizm
• Bireycilik-Toplulukçuluk

THE ROLES OF INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM AMONG PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP, MOBBING AND ORGANIZATIONAL CYNICISM RELATIONSHIPS

Abstract

The literature exploring under what conditions different leadership practices might be more effective generally focused on the qualities of the leaders, followers, organizations and cultures. In this frame, paternalistic leadership emerges as a hot topic referring to a particular type of leadership mostly preferred by followers in collectivistic cultures. This study investigates the mediating effect of mobbing on the relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational cynicism. It also explores whether the influence of paternalistic leadership on mobbing differs among the cultural values. The sample contained 333 employees working in different companies located in an Organized Industrial Region. The survey data were gathered through ‘Paternalistic Leadership’ ‘Workplace Bullying’, ‘Organizational Cynicism’, and ‘INDCOL’ Scales. The hypotheses are tested by using PROCESS macro suggested by Hayes (2018). The significant indirect effect suggested that mobbing acts as a mediator on paternalistic leadership and organizational cynicism linkage. The moderated mediation analysis revealed that such mediation effect does not vary among the levels of collectivist and individualist cultural values. However, among the cultural values, only collectivism (but not individualism) has found to moderate the effect of paternalistic leadership on mobbing. Within the high collectivist employees, mobbing perceptions weaken when the perception of paternalistic leadership increases.

Keywords

• Leadership
• Paternalistic Leadership
• Organizational Cynicism
• INDCOL

References

1. Akar, N.Y., Anafarta, N. ve Sarvan, F. (2011). Causes, dimensions and organizational consequences of mobbing: an empirical study. Ege Akademik Bakış, 11(1), 179-191.
2. Arslan, Ö. (2016). Okul Yöneticilerinin Paternalist Liderlik Düzeyleri ile Öğretmenlerin Örgütsel Sinizm Algıları Arasındaki İlişki. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Üniversitesi, Uşak.
3. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R.N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. ve Anwar, K. (2000). Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10-Country Comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1464-0597.00010
4. Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism. In Indigenous and Cultural Psychology. Boston, MA: Springer.
5. Aycan, Z. (2015). Paternalistic leadership. Wiley encyclopedia of management, 1-2.
6. Aycan, Z., Schyns, B., Sun, J.M., Felfe, J. ve Saher, N. (2013). Convergence and Divergence of Paternalistic Leadership: A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), 962-969. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.48
7. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
8. Brandes, P., Dharwadkar, R. ve Dean, J. (1999). Does employee cynicism matter? Employee and supervisor perspectives on work outcomes. Eastern Academy of Management, 2, 150-153.

9. Chan, S., Huang, X., Snape, E. ve Lam, C. (2013). The Janus face of paternalistic leaders: Authoritarianism, benevolence, subordinates' organization‐based self‐esteem, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 108-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1797
10. Dean, J., Brandes, P. ve Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational Cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 341-352. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533230
11. Deci, E. ve Ryan, R.M. (2000). The“what”and“why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-269. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
12. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and Bullying at Work: a Review of The Scandinavian Approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 379-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00043-3
13. Einarsen, S., Raknes, B. I., & Matthiesen, S. B. (1994). Bullying and harassment at work and their relationships to work environment quality: An exploratory study. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 4 (4), 381-401.
14. Erdirençelebi, M. ve Yazgan, A.E. (2017). Mobbing, örgütsel sinizm, örgütsel bağlılık ve bunların algılanan çalışan performansı üzerine etkileri. Süleyman Demirel University Journal of Faculty of Economics & Administrative Sciences, 22 (2), 267-284.
15. Ergeneli, A., Gohar, R. ve Temirbekova, Z. (2007). Transformational leadership: Its relationship to culture value dimensions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(6), 703-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.07.003
16. Ertüreten, A., Cemalcılar, Z. ve Aycan, Z. (2013). The Relationship of Downward Mobbing with Leadership Style and Organizational Attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 205-216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1468-2
17. Ersoy, N., Born, M., Derous, E. ve Van Der Molen, H.T. (2012). The effect of cultural orientation and leadership style on self- versus other-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour in Turkey and the Netherlands. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 15(4), 249-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2012.01380.x
18. Farh, J.L. ve Cheng, B.S. (2000). A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in chinese organizations. In A.S. Tsui, E.Weldon & J.Li (Eds.) Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context (pp.84-127). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
19. Forbes, G., Zhang, X., Doroszewicz, K. ve Haas, K. (2009). Relationships between individualism-collectivism, gender, and direct or indirect aggression: A study in China, Poland and the USA. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 35(1), 24-30. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ab.20292
20. Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The Norm Of Reciprocity: A preliminary Statement, American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2092623
21. Hayes, A.F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation, Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
22. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural Dimensions in Management and Planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2): 81-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01733682
23. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations. London: Sage Publications.
24. Huang, H., Hong, J.S. ve Espelage, D.L. (2013). Understanding factors associated with bullying and peer victimization in Chinese schools within ecological contexts. Journal of Child And Family Studies, 22(7), 881-892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9647-4.
25. Izquierdo, M.G., Esteban, B.L., Garcia-Izquierdo, A.L. ve Hernandez, J.A.R. (2006). Psychological Well-Being and Mobbing in a Sample of Employees Working in the Medical and Education Sectors, Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 22(3), 381-395.
26. Jacobson, K.J.L., Hood, J.N. ve Van Buren III, H.J. (2014). Workplace Bullying Across Cultures: A Research Agenda. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 14(1), 47-65. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1470595813494192
27. Jiang, H., Chen, Y., Sun, P. ve Yang, J. (2017). The relationship between authoritarian leadership and employees’ deviant workplace behaviors: the mediating effects of psychological contract violation and organizational cynicism. Frontiers in Psychology 8(732), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00732
28. Ju, F.X.Z. ve Bao, G. (2008). Western Countries and China: A Comperative Study on the effects of the paternalistic leadership and transformational leadership on the performance of private entreprises. Management World, 5, 85-101.
29. Kalağan, G. (2009). Araştırma Görevlilerinin Örgütsel Destek Algıları İle Örgütsel Sinizm Tutumları Arasındaki İlişki, (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Antalya.
30. Kalay, F., Oğrak, A., Bal, V. ve Nişancı, Z.N. (2012). Mobbing, örgütsel sessizlik ve örgütsel sinizm ilişkisi: Örnek bir uygulama. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 3(2), 1-18.
31. Kirkman, B., Lowe, K. ve Gibson, C. (2006), A quarter century of culture’s consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
32. Köksal, O. (2011). Bir Kültürel Liderlik Paradoksu: Paternalizm, Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 8(15), 101-122.
33. Laschinger, H.K.S., Grau, A.L., Finegan, J. ve Wilk, P. (2010). New graduate nurses’ experiences of bullying and burnout in hospital settings. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(1), 2732-2742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05420.x
34. Leymann, H. (1996).The Content and Development of Mobbing at Work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414853
35. Markus, H.R. ve Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
36. Mete, Y.A. ve Serin, H. (2015). Okul Yöneticilerinin Babacan Liderlik Davranışı ile Öğretmenlerin Örgütsel Vatandaşlık ve Örgütsel Sinizm Davranışları Arasındaki İlişki, Hasan Âli Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 147-159.
37. Miller, J.G. (2002). Bringing culture to basic psychological theory – Beyond individualism and collectivism: Comment on Oyserman et al.. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.97
38. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed. McGraw-Hill.
39. Özgener, Ş., Öğüt, A. ve Kaplan, M. (2008). İşgören-işveren İlişkilerinde Yeni bir Paradigma: Örgütsel Sinizm. M. Özdevecioğlu, H. Karadal (Ed.) Örgütsel Davranışta Seçme Konular Organizasyonların Karanlık Yönleri ve Verimlilik Azaltıcı Davranışlar içinde (pp.54-68) Ankara: İlke Yayınevi.
40. Pelit, E. ve Pelit, N. (2014).The Effects of Mobbing on Organizational Cynicism: A Study on Hotels in Turkey, International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4(1), 34-56. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v4i1.4996
41. Pellegrini, E.K. ve Scandura, T.A. (2006). Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2), 264-79. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/ palgrave.jibs.8400185
42. Pellegrini, E.K. ve Scandura, T.A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research, Journal of Management, 34(3), 566–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0149206308316063
43. Pellegrini, E.K., Scandura, T.A. ve Jayaraman, V. (2010). Cross-Cultural Generalizability of Paternalistic Leadership: An Expansion of Leader–Member Exchange Theory, Group & Organization Management, 35(4), 391-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110378456
44. Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. ve Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
45. Polat, M. ve Meydan, C.H. (2010). Örgütsel Özdeşleşmenin Sinizm ve İşten Ayrılma Niyeti İle İlişkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, KHO Savunma Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 145-172.
46. Samnani, A.K. (2013).The Early Stages of Workplace Bullying and How It Becomes Prolonged: The Role of Culture in Predicting Target Responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(1), 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1286-6
47. Samnani, A.K, Boekhorst, J.A. ve Harrison, J.A. (2016). Institutional-level bullying: Exploring workplace bullying during union organizing drives, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 377-395. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12129
48. Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P. ve Gelfand, M.J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-cultural research, 29(3), 240-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939719502900302
49. Soylu, S. (2011). Creating a Family or Loyalty-Based Framework: The Effects of Paternalistic Leadership on Workplace Bullying. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(2), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0651-6
50. Terzi, A.R. ve Derin, R. (2016). Relation between democratic leadership and organizational cynicism. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 193-204. . https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n3p193
51. Thornhill, A., Saunders, M., & Lewis, P. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. Prentice Hall: London.
52. Tınz, P., Gök, S. ve Karatuna, I. (2010). Türkiye’de işyerinde psikolojik taciz oranının ve türlerinin belirlenmesi: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Öneri Dergisi, 9(34), 1-11.
53. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
54. Triandis, H.C. (1996). The Psychological Measurement of Cultural Syndromes, American Psychologist, 51(4), 407-415.
55. Tutar, H. ve Akbolat, M. (2012). Sağlık Çalışanlarının Yönetici Cinsiyetleri Bakımından Mobbing Algıları, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28, 19-29.
56. Türköz, T., Polat, M. ve Coşar, S. (2013). Çalışanların Örgütsel Güven ve Sinizm Algılarının Örgütsel Bağlılıkları Üzerindeki Rolü. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 285-302.
57. Uhl-Bien, M. ve Maslyn, J.M. (2005). Paternalism as a form of leadership: Differentiating paternalism from leader member exchange, Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.
58. Wasti, S.A. ve Eser Erdil, S. (2007). Bireycilik ve Toplulukçuluk Değerlerinin Ölçülmesi: Benlik Kurgusu ve INDCOL ölçeklerinin Türkçe Geçerlemesi. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(1-2), 39-66.
59. Yukl, G. (2011).Contingency theories of effective leadership. The SAGE handbook of leadership, 24(1), 286-298.
60. Zhang, W. (2002). Prevalence and major characteristics of bullying/ victimization among primary and junior middle school children, Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34(4), 57-64.